Anthony Brown

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at Burnbrae Gardens.

The intervenor union requested a postponement of the certificate's issuance, citing ongoing proceedings against the applicant in other forums, including a contempt motion in Superior Court.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 does not grant discretion to postpone the issuance of a certificate.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote favoured the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the responding party.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, which the responding employee opposed.

The applicant was advised to attend the hearing to request the adjournment but failed to appear.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and failed to attend, the Board dismissed the application and ordered the funds held in trust to be disbursed to the employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the applicant failed to appear.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the Director of Employment Standards to disburse the funds held in trust to the responding employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervenor requested a postponement of the certificate's issuance due to ongoing proceedings against the applicant in other forums.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 does not grant discretion to postpone the issuance of a certificate.

Following a successful representation vote, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of office and clerical employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and the parties having settled outstanding issues, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the defined bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant, Christian Labour Association of Canada, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Bibs Sarnia Limited o/a Tim Hortons, following a Memorandum of Settlement between the parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Imperial Cold Storage and Distribution Inc. Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the responding party.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed within the time fixed under Rule 62 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the responding party's long-term care facility.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent cleaning and maintenance employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant employers sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The claimant, a babysitter, was transitioned to a 'self-employed' arrangement but was later terminated after disclosing her high-risk pregnancy and experiencing nausea.

The Board found that the claimant was an employee, not an independent contractor, as the employers directed her duties and provided all tools.

The Board further held that the employers terminated her employment because of her pregnancy, violating section 44 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application for review was dismissed, and the employers were ordered to pay the claimant $5,029.00.

The applicant, a union steward, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union after it withdrew her grievances concerning a shift transfer and subsequent lay-off.

The applicant alleged the union failed to adequately consult her or keep her informed.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union properly investigated the transfer, consulted senior officials and legal counsel, and came to a bona fide conclusion that the collective agreement did not protect the applicant from the transfer.

The Board held that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at the employer's manufacturing plants.

The employer argued that the representation vote should be delayed under the 'build-up' principle, as it planned to significantly expand its workforce by opening new production lines.

The Board found that while the employer had a firm plan to expand its physical capacity, it was not reasonably certain that this would result in a sufficient increase in the number of employees within a reasonable time to justify delaying the vote.

The Board declined to apply the build-up principle, counted the ballots, and issued a certificate to the union.

The applicant, an assistant caretaker, alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to file a grievance regarding a salary differential.

The differential arose from a merger of two school boards, where some former employees' salaries were red-circled.

The union obtained a legal opinion and concluded the differential was based on a factor other than sex, thus not violating section 32 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the union's decision not to grieve was considered, based on legal advice, and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant informed the Board that he had not served the complete application on the union and employer because he first required a copy of his file from the union.

The Board declined to order the union to produce its internal documents and directed the applicant to serve the complete application by a specified date, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer disputed the union's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the numerical difference was not significant and directed a representation vote.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4).